Seismic Design of Concrete Parking Structure Ramps

Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California

Beginning in 1959 and extending to 1996, the Seismology Committee of the

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) published printed
editions of Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, which
was commonly called the Blue Book. The “Requirements” portion of those
publications was in large part adopted verbatim by the International Council
of Building Officials as the seismic regulations of the Uniform Building Code.
With the unification of the three major model building code organizations in the
United States to form the International Code Council, and the nationwide use
of the NEHRP seismic design provisions that are developed under the auspices
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Building Seismic Safety
Council, SEAOC directed its focus to developing forward-looking seismic
design articles. Those articles provide commentary and guidance for engineering
practitioners and building officials, clarifying ambiguities in codes and standards
and identifying needed improvements in them. The result is a set of articles,
SEAOC Blue Book, 2009 Edition, published by the International Code Council.
The SEAOC Seismology Committee is continually developing new articles,
which are web-accessible at www.seaoc.org/bluebook.

In the January 17, 1994 Northridge that is suitable because long

Earthquake, eight major parking struc-
tures suffered partial or total collapse
(Figure 1) and at least twenty others were
heavily damaged. Most of these struc-
tures were relatively modern, having been
constructed in the 25 years prior to the
Northridge earthquake.
No other modern concrete building
type performed as poorly relative to the
primary code objective of safety. A variety
of damage occurred and was noted in the
Earthquake Engineering Research Insti-
tute reconnaissance report on structural
damage: collapse of the gravity load-
dedicated to the dissemination of information from other organizations
spans are economical with
smaller member sizes. The
long-span floor systems tend
to vibrate, but the resulting
vibrations are acceptable to
uninhabited spaces such as
parking garages. As a result,
the structural long-span fra-
Figure 1: Collapsed parking structure, 1994 Northridge
ming systems often used in
Earthquake. Courtesy of Robert Reitherman.
parking structures are not
usually found in other types of building which are likely to be governed by shear
occupancies. Additionally, the open nature action rather than bending. This article
of parking structures has resulted in less is confined to this important issue of the
redundant structures with fewer shear walls, seismic design and analysis of ramps. A

resisting systems sometimes occurred while frames, or other lateral force-resisting more complete treatment is available in
perimeter walls and frames that were part systems. Parking structures have very few the Structural Engineers Association of
Guest Column

of the lateral force-resisting system were
undamaged; failure of diaphragm collectors
and chords; large diaphragm deflections;
and distress at precast connections due
to lateral movements. On the other hand,
many parking structures in the area of
strong shaking received little or no damage,
suggesting that some design and construc-
tion practices used in these structures
were inherently better than others.
Unique Seismic Issues of
Parking Structures
Parking structures are usually very large
in plan area, with relatively thin post-
tensioned or precast concrete diaphragms
as compared to a typical office building. Ar-
chitectural, traffic, security, and economical
demands push for long spans and large
open areas. Prestressed concrete is a system
interior nonstructural elements, such California Blue Book paper on Concrete
as partitions, ceilings, and mechanical Parking Structures available at www.seaoc.
systems. This inherently leads to lower org/bluebook, which includes references
damping than could be expected from a and also covers design issues related to
typical office or other building. Damping columns and diaphragms.
ratios ranging from 3% to 4% were ob-
served in an instrumented parking structure
during the Northridge earthquake. Ramps
Typical parking structures differ from We can speak in general of a parking
office buildings in that they may not have structure being a particular number of
discrete story levels. Instead the stories may stories in height, but in terms of its struc-
be connected with long, slightly-sloping tural actions, the concept of stories can be
ramps, which may constitute entire parking an ambiguous concept. Parking structures
levels and are sometimes called parked-on often have a spiral or split level configu-
ramps, or shorter ramps of greater slope ration that is not clearly represented by
that provide one or two lanes of inter- discrete story levels. For example, the same
level access, which are called speed ramps. segment of the deck could connect level
Ramps can be detrimental to the intended three to level four. Ramps that connect
seismic response of the building by acting directly to shear walls or moment frames
as unintended diagonal braces. Additionally, further deviate from the idealized distinct
ramps often create interior short columns story levels used in the current codes.

STRUCTURE magazine 8 July 2010

 The actual performance of an integrated Table 1: Building code changes since 1994 affecting concrete parking structures.
ramp structure may not match the ductile
behavior upon which seismic factors, such as Structural Element Intent of Code Change ASCE 7-05 ACI 318-05
the R factor, were based. Ramps can change Diaphragm and Specified the minimum ACI 21.9.4
the stiffness and deflection patterns of the Collectors thickness of topping slabs. ACI 21.9.8.3
building and change the distribution of loads Limited the spacing and bar size
to the designated seismic resisting elements, in at lap splices for force transfer
some cases attracting a significant percentage of
the force. For example, the R factor in ASCE
7-05 or the 2006 International Building Code Collector Design Forces Increased the collector ASCE 12.10.2
for a special moment resisting-frame (SMRF) design forces
is 8. For comparison, the R factor for a special
shear wall in a building frame system is 6. In
other words, the base shear for a SMRF building
is permitted to be 75% of that of a shear wall
building because of the relative implied ductil- Prestress Tendons Excluded the use of prestressing ACI 21.9.5.2
ity (6/8) for the two systems by the code. If a tendons in boundary and
ramp in a SMRF parking structure stiffens up collector elements, except
the building, reducing the true flexibility and for the precompression from
altering the hinge formation mechanism, then unbonded tendons
the use of R = 8 in this case is non-conservative.
Strength Factor, Φ Reduced Φ from 0.85 to 0.60 ACI 9.3.4
for the design of reinforcement
Treatment of Parking used for diaphragm chords and
Structures by Building Codes collectors placed in topping
Based on observations from the 1994 North- slabs over precast
ridge Earthquake, the following code changes
(Table 1) were subsequently added for concrete Beam-to-Column Added requirements for ACI 21.11.4
structures in regions of high seismicity. Connection precast concrete gravity frames
Current building codes do not provide for improved beam to column
specific guidelines suitable for analyzing the connections
complex story interactions that can occur in
parking structures, nor provisions for detail-
ing seismic capacity in the ramps. In some Transverse Prescriptive requirements ACI 21.11.2
cases, assuming discrete story levels may be Reinforcement of for transverse reinforcement ACI 21.11.3
too simplified an approach and could cause Frame Members for frame members not
the designer to overlook unintended struc- proportioned to resist seismic-
tural shortcomings. induced forces
Shear walls and moment frames are recognized
lateral force-resisting elements in building codes,
but ramps are not codified. Yet, some ramps
can be stiff and massive enough to interact with
the designated seismic resisting systems. A lit-
eral interpretation of the 2006 International
Building Code might place ramps in the “other

ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

components” category like gravity columns and
non-frame beams, which are often excluded in SuperLaminate™ - Not Your Ordinary Fiber Wrap System
seismic analysis models. When ramps are cat-
egorized as non-seismic elements, their effect
Introducing the Next Generation of FRP
Advantages of SuperLaminate™
on the seismic behavior of the structure could Blast retrofit of structures Strengthening of concrete & masonry walls
• One size fits all
be inadvertently overlooked. • Stronger than fiber wrap
Ramps can be considered as inclined slabs, • ISO-9000 certified plant Retrofit of
• Up to 80% faster construction time beams, slabs &
but codes lack specificity in detailing guide- • Material properties known before columns
lines suitable for slabs to function as vertical installation Repair of columns
You can learn more about these below grade without
elements of the primary seismic force-resisting products by visiting the need for costly Field-manufac-
system. Interconnected ramps are not held to excavation tured cylindrical
www.SuperLaminate.com
shell around
the ductility detailing provisions prescribed www.QuakeWrap.com (PileMedic.com) square columns
for the shear walls and frames. The diaphragm www.PipeMedic.com
www.PileMedic.com
collector and shear reinforcement is not in- Repair of under-
tended to yield, and thus boundary member PLEASE CALL US FOR AN EVALUATION BY Trenchless repair of water piles with-
ONE OF OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS pipes and culverts, out the need for
confinement would not be required. Similar (520) 791-7000 OR costly divers
including spot repair
concerns regarding the greater force demands (866) QuakeWrap [782-5397]
(PipeMedic.com) (PileMedic.com)

STRUCTURE magazine 9 July 2010

 have been raised pertaining to the discussion
of highly flexible diaphragms with perimeter-
only lateral restraint systems. Stiff ramps also can
alter the balance of lateral resisting components,
causing secondary torsion effects that redistrib-
ute the story forces, potentially increasing loads
to specific seismic resisting elements.
Design Approaches
It is common practice to release ramps at
grade, but to provide positive connections at
the elevated parking decks. This may result in
soft and/or weak story performance in areas of
high seismicity. The shift from connected to
disconnected levels can cause a local redistri-
bution of the shear forces, causing the second
story diaphragm to act like a transfer slab with
substantial load demands. This is more critical
for moment frame structures than for other
structures. In some configurations, the top-
level floor may have shear-resisting elements
on three sides only, and thus relies on canti-
lever diaphragm rotation to distribute seismic
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
forces at that level. The horizontal irregularity
types noted in the building code lack guide-
lines to limit cantilever diaphragm distance.
It is common in the industry to neglect
the interconnectivity of the story levels in
the analysis stage of design. A less common
approach, due to its impracticality, is to design
the ramp with a physical release at each level,
using expansion joints to change the structure
to match the code. While analytically possible,
this construction approach is impractical as
the lateral seismic loads imposed by the sloped
ramps, which are connected to the horizontal
diaphragms on one side only, contribute to
undesirable torsional effects. Additionally, the
added initial cost, ongoing maintenance, and
the added aesthetic drawbacks of the expansion
joints further undermine this approach.
Some practitioners believe that interconnecting
sloped floors provide for structural “tough-
ness,” judging that a well tied-together building
is inherently more robust. While it is valid
to assert that connected ramps provide reserve
stiffness or redundancy to a building, it also
is true that concurrent load paths are inher-
ently unpredictable. Secondary systems can
inadvertently absorb a disproportionate share
of the load, even functioning as primary load
paths. For example, stiff non-ductile ramps
can dominate a moment-frame system, short-
circuiting the ductile members that are designed
to dissipate the energy.
Many practitioners prefer to include shear
walls in the direction of the ramps, while
maintaining more flexible moment-resisting
STRUCTURE magazine 10 July 2010
frames in the orthogonal direction. This prac-
tice allows less seismic deformation along
the sloped ramps and reduces seismic loads
imposed on short columns. In any event, it
should be noted that ramps have two different
characteristics: orthogonal and longitudinal. In
the longitudinal direction, ramps act as truss
elements transmitting axial forces. The con-
cern in the orthogonal direction is the aspect
ratio of the diaphragm and the deformation
associated with it. Designers should properly
account for these issues.
In the absence of published guidelines, the
best approach currently being used to study
these effects is project-specific computer anal-
ysis, with each unique building being modeled
to evaluate the effects of the particular ramping
configuration. Today’s computational tools
permit more complex analysis, including flex-
ibility of diaphragms, and more complex defi-
nitions of deck levels, including sloped ones.
However, the current computer output is even
more difficult to correlate with the prescribed
design approach specified in the building code
because seismic loads are resisted by other
members of the structure such as the ramps,
not just the designated lateral force-resisting
system recognized by the code.
Summary
Parking structures have a number of unique
characteristics, compared to conventional con-
crete buildings, which affect their seismic
performance. While this article has focused
specifically on issues regarding ramps, addi-
tional topics are addressed in the full SEAOC
Blue Book article. Ramps will impact the seismic
behavior of parking structures to varying
degrees, depending on the interconnectivity of
the ramps and the primary seismic force-
resisting system. An appropriate level of analyti-
cal sophistication is required to identify and
properly design for these effects. A three-
dimensional computer analysis, which includes
consideration of the ramps, is an effective tool
to capture the behavior and is highly recom-
mended. The challenge, and responsibility, of
the structural designer of a parking structure is
to overcome the disparity between the config-
uration of the structure and the current code
procedures, and to demonstrate and detail a
rational load path through the structure.▪
Mehran Pourzanjani, Chair of the
Seismology Committee of the Structural
Engineers Association of California,
mehran@sbise.com.